There will be no further moderator response in this thread. Brian has tried to explain the actions, several of you have refused to accept his explanations. ..... You will be reminded that although we encourage open and free expression of opinions (within posted guidelines), we will not debate policy with the members.

I'm not trying to debate this. I would just like to make a point for consideration. A key to the enforcement of any rule is that the logic behind the enforcement be understood by all participants. Full understanding will assist others to avoid similar transgressions in the future. Lack of understanding will result in history repeating itself. So it benefits both forum members and moderators if everyone understands exactly why a rule was enforced in a specific instance.

In this case, there are a number of people who are genuinely confused and puzzled at the interpretation that led to a respected vendor's comments being removed from the forum. Merely citing the rule does not tell the whole story. The rule is vague enough that it could be interpreted by some as "If you look at me funny you're outta here." Everyone should carefully read stumax's comments in message #4 of this thread to understand just how vague Rule #2 is to vendors.

I believe that I'm not alone in having a concern that this incident could have a chilling effect on the many respected vendors who post here. Legitimate vendor posts represent an important value to members. Loss of legitimate vendor posts due to confusion over interpretation of Rule #2 would diminish the value of RC Groups to members.

The better we can all understand specifically how the vendor messages that started this thread differed from other similar messages to result in a violation of Rule #2, the better we can all adjust to make RC Groups a better place for everyone.

I would add to Dave's comments that this site is for suggestions, as well as complaints.

Implicit in this discussion, I think, is the suggestion that the rule be clarified, such that stumax's contribution would not have been subject to exclusion. Simply insisting that moderators have properly interpreted a rule as written is not responsive to a suggestion for change.

Another suggestion I would make is that anything removed from a thread by a moderator be archived for a short time - say 30 days - to allow administrative oversight based on the original record.

Let me take the other side for the sake of argument -
In my time on this forum, there have been only a couple of post pulling incidents of this magnitude, the worse one being the "accidental erasure". A couple of incidents doesn't seem like a big problem to me.

If the beef is with vendors who appear to have a free pass for commenting on other vendors threads, then complain at the time those posts go up.

If the problem is with this specific thread, than I'd just find another way to get the question on the board. As has been said in the past, "There is more than one way to skin a cat". I started a thread inviting comments from vendors, distributors and manufacturers on cell matching and nobody came to the party. Any vendor could have jumped in and expressed there views on the subject. It's not too late.... https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=262393

So what can be done about these two scenarios?
1. In the case of a moderator defined rule 7 violation, the moderator could notify the poster and ask that the post be rewritten. I don't know if that is a moderators option but it could prevent incidents like this from happening unless the poster refuses to change the post. Of necessity, this would have to done quickly to keep the thread on track. Perhaps the thread could be held in limbo till the "offensive" post was revised.

2. Readers notify the moderators of rule 7 violations. (Out of curiosity, have clear cut rule 7 violations been reported to management and no action taken?)

Despite wether you agree with the rule or not, it exists and it was Brian's job to enforce it. Has anyone involved in this thread realized yet that Brian quit? You know, its a shame that someone taking time from his family, hobbies, and whatever else to volunteer to moderate an online forum gets called a "stormtrooper" I think some of you owe him an apology.

Brian,

Thanks for do the job and dealing with it as long as you did, and welcome back to the ranks of mere members!!

Attempts to trivialize the issue, based on Brians reaction, are not persuasive.

- RD

Had I been trying to be persuasive...I would not dance around the subject as I believe in "telling it like it is". However in my mind...it is trivial. Everyone needs to get out...get some fresh air...and quite taking a terminal with some information on it..so darn serious. This opinion has nothing to do with Brians decision (although RCG has lost an asset in that capacity), but I have been around here long enough to see the same thing over and over again.... People needing to unplug........

my oppinion is that nothing on this site should be moderated, everything should be raw and real.

Then it would be just like all the other out of control sites on the net.
I think you'll find "your opinion" to be in the vast minority among the users of this site. Most users appreciate the family friendly, respectful discussion that occurs here. I know I do.
The few rules that do exist here each have a purpose.

I think the his post meant R/C'ers are pretty much self-policing. We don't need good information that people have taken the time to post to end up gone. It's stealing...people don't take the time to post here if it's just gonna be a waste of their time. They post here to help others.

It's appearant that you were not involved in the thread that started this post. There was alot of good information in the postings that were deleted. Info that was good enough that it was saved in my favorites folder. Those links are now dead-links. It wasn't only a waste of my time to post in the original thread, but I had to go back and clean up dead links that were saved to MY computer.

One of the problems I see with this complaints forum is it really serves no useful purpose. The mods here have already made it clear that they will not discuss policy, so why have this forum if our issues are only echoing off the brick wall? They are above making a mistake, and their minds are made up before they even listen.

That's the real problem here, and what started this thread in the first place. Somebody made a bad choice, but instead of fixing it, it just got swept under the rug. Now the offender has quit, the info is gone, the original posters are pissed, and the members lose again.

1. To archive material deleted by moderators for a short time, and
2. To clarify the rule controlling supplier postings, so as to allow general information from them regarding products offered by other suppliers.